It should come as no surprise that fossil fuel companies are trying to discredit their biggest competitors: the clean energy industry. Together with their allies in Congress, they are trying to use the failure of one solar company to paint the entire renewable sector as a dangerous risk.

The people actually in charge of keeping this country safe, however, know the opposite is true.

The Department of Defense—the nation’s largest consumer of energy—has pledged to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and the Marine Corps are going even farther. They plan to reduce fossil energy use by 50 percent by 2020 and cut the petroleum used in their non-tactical fleet by 50 percent by 2015. The Air Forces plans to use alternative fuels for 50 percent of its domestic aviation needs by 2016.

The military made this commitment for pragmatic reasons. It knows the value of clean energy is found not only in its cost effectiveness but in its power to secure our nation and save lives.

According to a recent Washington Post article, for every 50 convoys of fuel brought into Afghanistan, one Marine is wounded or killed. And for every one-dollar rise in the cost of oil, another $30 million gets added to the Navy’s energy costs.

Earlier this year Assistant Secretary of the Navy Jackalyne Pfannenstiel told NRDC’s OnEarth Magazine that the Navy’s investment in clean energy is about security and supply.

“Navy Secretary Mabus recognized very early on the strategic importance of energy and our dependence on it from a military point of view—and so much of it is imported. Our job is to defend the country. So how do we reduce the risk that’s involved in importing so much of this critical resource? We also use a huge amount of energy in theater, in military operations. And that makes us vulnerable, both in terms of cost and in the risk to fuel convoys. So getting ourselves off imported energy is both a tactical and a strategic priority.”

The Army, meanwhile, has set an ambitious goal of achieving “zero net energy consumption” by 2030. This means a building or installation produced as much energy as it consumes. “The goal is net-zero: net-zero energy, net-zero water, and net-zero waste,” said Katherine Hammack, the assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy, and the environment. IN April, the Army launched a net-zero-energy pilot program at six Army facilities, including the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.

More efficient vehicles, homegrown biofuels, and renewable energy are helping the military meet these goals. And in the meantime, it is providing a market for American innovators.

The Washington Post article quoted Nicole Lederer, a co-founder of NRDC’s sister organization Environmental Entrepreneurs—a group of 850 companies that advocate for smart environmental policies. Many of E2’s members are in the clean energy sector, and they have welcomed the chance to partner with the Pentagon, especially after Congress failed to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation. Lederer said, “When one door closed, a big window opened with the Department of Defense.”

Back in the spring, I attended a conference celebrating E2’s 10th anniversary, and I remember hearing Jerry Fiddler, the chairman of Solazyme, talk about the fuel his company produced from algae. Solazyme was delivering more than 100,000 gallons of ship diesel and jet fuel to the Navy, and Fiddler said the military made a great customer for a clean energy start-up because it’s a large, knowledgeable, and demanding technological partner. Satisfying the Navy’s needs, he said, has helped him commercialize his innovative product.

NRDC is also partnering with the Department of Defense to help expedite the siting process for renewable energy projects near DOD facilities and ensure that both environmental and military considerations are taken into account. We are also working to expand the use of certified sustainable biofuels as an alternative to petroleum and promote energy efficiency and sustainability goals at DOD facilities.

These projects and all the DOD’s clean energy programs provide something that Congress has failed to offer: a clear, long-range market signal for clean energy investment. Secretary Mabus said, “The thing I want to attack the most is [that] this is some sort of far or flavor of the moment.”

Instead, clean energy is the future, and the Pentagon is starting to build it right now.

I am the Executive Director of NRDC. The position is my second at NRDC. Beginning in 1994, I led the Clean Water Program for five years, before leaving in 1999 to serve as the head of the Environmental Protection Bureau for the Attorney General of the State of New York.

I’m not looking for any investment, but the Defense and Intelligence community have sure made it easier to talk with the corn ethanol community in Minnesota. And current interest in non-food biofuel has made it easier still. And the climate and water concerns have made it even less hostile.

Rick what do you mean ‘talk to’? Was there a lack of communication before?To me, the vote of confidence (in the form of large dollars) from such a trusted and respected establishment is a real boon for the biofuels community.

Amelia, thanks to the wonderful references I get from TEC, I had the nerve to call some Minnesota officials yesterday.As a Biophysicist from the 1970s and early 1980s this energy and environment stuff is not really new. My last grant proposals were in 1987 for (1)hay crop processing into protein enhanced feed with cellulose removed for fuels, and (2) recycling plastic to mass produce livestock septic tanks. Then the corn ethanol and windmill fads hit, and with children it was necessary to disappear of my own free will or theirs. I called in once in a while to keep the memory alive.So yesterday, I needed a break after too much cement and welding and used my TEC ref.s with the Minnesota Dept. of Ag. and the U of M. and some others. Geoff Styles US Energy Security Council ref. really made the MN. Dept. of Ag. squirm.I did get 2 nice emails already today from the U of M Inst. for Sustainable Ag. (Helene Murray; sincerely appreciate and will have to follow up).Robert Rapier posts often on the biofuel baloney around. He has more courage than me, or fewer kids. Anyway, I’ve never had problems with traditional energy companies like oil and electric utilities.Several years ago a U of M physics prof gave me the pleasure of discussions regarding the solar fuels idea. But again, the MN. ag. lobby wants corn ethanol; period (with a capital P).So, hey, I have a right to serve my country don’t I?

Amelia, here is a link sent by the U of Mn.http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/09/0425.xml&contentidonly=trueIt mentions the biochar concept and DOD goals that have been posted here. Prettty much the stuff pushed decades ago has become new again.The notion that we can dig ever deeper, and increase complexity for fundamental human needs like food and energy only works in prosperous peacetime. The DOD does not presume perpetual peace. All these big ideas for big agriculture and big energy tend to provide big targets and big vulnerabilities for some potentially big adversaries.